Windows 7 Milestone 3 Build 6801 Review

[KSoD]

I understand you statement on that part Trotter. But the main thing is with PC's and you know it as well as i do that thigs develop so fast. From 95 to 2001 when there was 4 different OS's released there was major developements. It went from being a KB RAM based system and MB Hard Drives to MB RAM and GB RAM and GB and TB hard drives.

The thing is people are clicnging to XP like it was the best thing since sliced bread for Widnows OS's. But the fact is that it is old tech. The Kernel is 7 years old already. The OS is old. There has been probably close to a million patches done on it.

People have to realize that something like that cant last forever. It will be time to upgrade at some point. They can keep trying to back port technology to XP. XP X64 is one of the worst OS's out there. Very little to no support. But yet systems are running 4GB of RAM or more.

Yet XP 32 Bit can handle this. So people are upset. They are wondering why this could happen. Well 7 years ago it would have never been thought of to run 4GB of RAM. Back then 1GB was the utmost extreme.

Win7 will be what people want. It will be a combination of the latest tech for OS's (Also stuff in Vista right now and with SP2) and it will also be stable, fast and secure. It will be everything that people need it to be. More than want it to be. It will be what Vista should have been if Microsoft didnt waste 3 years of development time on Longhorn.

Vista is good. But this will be great.

 

[Trotter]

we're on the same page, Mak. MS wants 7 to be something that people can see the need for upgrading to it. Vista is capable now, but at launch it was a real mess. It wasn't all MS fault, though, as vendor's hadn't put out drivers and the whole Intel/Vista/Aero gate debacle.

I was looking forward to Vista, but was disappointed overall. I am really looking forward to 7, as I am hoping to pair it with a new build. XP is old and showing its age, and all I am seeing of 7 makes my mouth water.

 

[KSoD]

I figured we were. I just wanted to clarify my post a bit more with a better explination.

Vista is hurt by the user reviews out there. It got a bad reputation and from that it is har dto recover. With the internet being what it is today if you get 1 bad remark on the internet it spreads like wild fire.

Windows 7 at this point is great. I am using it as my main OS. Above Vista, XP and Linux. So that has to be worth something when someone is using it as their main OS.

Vista has its quirks. SP1 helped greatly. Sp2 will make it even better. I run that as well and i have seen the resource footprint drop drastically. I could easily get up to 70% of my RAM used in Vista. Out of 3GB that is a lot. But now with SP2 and everythign going it is on par with what i see in XP/Win7 with the stuff i run. Roughly at 40%.

So SP2 will help people move to Vista but since SP2 will be released not long before Win7 it will be to late.

I would highly suggest Win7 to anyone. With a bit of tweaking you can get it going great. For a pre-beta tht speaks volumes. Since this is still unoptomized code. When they get to work and get the Beta out and get to work cleaning up the OS i wouldnt doubt that Win7 will beat XP in benchmarks. They are on track for that.

If they can reach that mark. There will be no reason for people not to switch.

 

[Nick]

This will be posted elsewhere, but what are the min specs?

 

[KSoD]

They are not known at this time. Right now the min specs are on par with Vista cause it isnt much different. It wont be known what the min specs are for the final till close to the end of the beta. So we will know that for sure sometime next year.

 

[Nick]

Ah, they should make the min recomended RAM at least 1GB, for Vista Basic it's 512mb, you see pre-built systems being shipped with 512mb RAM and an 8400GS. Makes you kinda sick

 

[KSoD]

There this thread is no longer useless. All pics are in the posts. Thanks to Trotter for changing it so that they can be in the posts instead of linked. Now you can see what i am talking about as i post.

 

[Apokalipse]

XP X64 is one of the worst OS's out there.

I highly disagree with you there. I've been running XP x64 for a long time now, and it's been one of the best OS's I've used.
Most of the time you will find drivers for what you have, and it will run all my programs, except for iTunes (which is Apple's fault. Now I have iTunes in an XP 32 virtual machine, for my 4GB iPod nano), and 16-bit programs (though 99.9% of software now is 32-bit or 64-bit)

If you've got it set up right, it'll run fast, stable, and with the 64-bit program support and much higher RAM limit that XP 32 doesn't have.

 

[KSoD]

My statement after that clarified why i said that. Which i am right about. XP X64 has little to no support for hardware. Some of the older hardware yes. But anything newer. No. Many of the hardware delevopers have never supported XP X64. Not to mention they tried to merge a Server based Kernel with a Desktop OS. Windows 2000 while decent showed that can be trouble for the average user.

I see very few hardware components out there that have support for XP X64 compared to Vista 64. Yes i know Vista is newer and all that. But even when XP X64 was the only 64 Bit OS out there it still wasnt highly supported. It is the least supported OS from Microsoft out there right now.

That is only cause Windows 95, 98, and ME are no longer supported.

Yeah it runs. Yeah it will do what you want. But compared to Vista 64 Bit it is a poor OS. This comes from many people who have used both. They give me their experience saying that XP X64 is not even able to be compared to Vista 64. That is how bad it is.

So your right. It isnt the worst OS's out there. There are worse. But from a Microsoft Windows standpoint. It is. There are far better choices to use. XP 32 Bit being one of them.

Your also right that 16 Bit is not supported. That is true for all Windows 64 Bit OS's.

 

[Apokalipse]

My statement after that clarified why i said that. Which i am right about. XP X64 has little to no support for hardware. Some of the older hardware yes. But anything newer. No.

I have to disagree, I've practically never run into core or common hardware that you couldn't get XP x64 drivers for.

Not to mention they tried to merge a Server based Kernel with a Desktop OS.

It's not a server based kernel. It's a general purpose kernel. The UI and default settings are the difference.
the 2003 kernel is the same kernel as XP uses.
the XP/2003 x64 kernel was just built to run x64 programs natively, while running 32-bit programs sort of as if they were 64-bit programs (with next to zero performance loss).

I see very few hardware components out there that have support for XP X64 compared to Vista 64.

Quite often it won't actually say on the box that a piece of hardware has got XP x64 drivers, but most of the time there will be, even if you have to download them.

Yeah it runs. Yeah it will do what you want.

So, if it runs and does what I want (fast and stably), what else would I need?

But compared to Vista 64 Bit it is a poor OS.

It's not a poor OS. It's just widely ignored.
But it runs basically everything I need, fast and stably. I can customise almost everything the same way I can with XP, while doing things that XP 32 isn't capable of.

This comes from many people who have used both.

I've used both.

They give me their experience saying that XP X64 is not even able to be compared to Vista 64. That is how bad it is.

Did they say why?

So your right. It isnt the worst OS's out there. There are worse. But from a Microsoft Windows standpoint. It is. There are far better choices to use. XP 32 Bit being one of them.

XP x64 does things that XP 32 can't do. Besides that, it runs almost the same as XP in my experience. And I've had a lot of it with this OS.